Recently Watched Movies 2021 | Page 14 | The Boneyard

Recently Watched Movies 2021

I think "The Protege" slipped mostly under the radar. Some big names in this one--Michael Keaton, Maggie Q, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Patrick. Solid movie. Not wall to wall action, there is some time to let the story breathe.
 
Letsgohuskies11 said:
Watched The Forgotten Battle on Netflix, thought it was good.
Expand ...
It was a good watch, cinematography and action were excellent, but not the movie I was expecting.

There were a ton of issues with radio communications that prevented Operation Market Garden from being a complete success, with lots of pockets of Allied troops being left stranded (such as the Canadians on the dike), but this film didn't really get into the communications or logistics issues, rather just focused on three individuals, their experiences leading up to and during the battle, and the outcome. The stories never truly intersect other than in a "passing on the street" way.

I'd be interested in seeing another take on Market Garden with more focus on how all the military logistics components got FUBARed.
 
storrsroars said:
It was a good watch, cinematography and action were excellent, but not the movie I was expecting.

There were a ton of issues with radio communications that prevented Operation Market Garden from being a complete success, with lots of pockets of Allied troops being left stranded (such as the Canadians on the dike), but this film didn't really get into the communications or logistics issues, rather just focused on three individuals, their experiences leading up to and during the battle, and the outcome. The stories never truly intersect other than in a "passing on the street" way.

I'd be interested in seeing another take on Market Garden with more focus on how all the military logistics components got FUBARed.
Expand ...
Didn't know that context, but interesting
 
storrsroars said:
It was a good watch, cinematography and action were excellent, but not the movie I was expecting.

There were a ton of issues with radio communications that prevented Operation Market Garden from being a complete success, with lots of pockets of Allied troops being left stranded (such as the Canadians on the dike), but this film didn't really get into the communications or logistics issues, rather just focused on three individuals, their experiences leading up to and during the battle, and the outcome. The stories never truly intersect other than in a "passing on the street" way.

I'd be interested in seeing another take on Market Garden with more focus on how all the military logistics components got FUBARed.
Expand ...

Well there was a pretty huge movie called “A Bridge Too Far” made with a crazy good cast. It’s based on the book of the same title.
 
.-.
storrsroars said:
It was a good watch, cinematography and action were excellent, but not the movie I was expecting.

There were a ton of issues with radio communications that prevented Operation Market Garden from being a complete success, with lots of pockets of Allied troops being left stranded (such as the Canadians on the dike), but this film didn't really get into the communications or logistics issues, rather just focused on three individuals, their experiences leading up to and during the battle, and the outcome. The stories never truly intersect other than in a "passing on the street" way.

I'd be interested in seeing another take on Market Garden with more focus on how all the military logistics components got FUBARed.
Expand ...

The plan was too audacious. The jumps happened, but they weren’t able to consolidate on the objectives. So their audacity became a liability.
 
ZooCougar said:
Well there was a pretty huge movie called “A Bridge Too Far” made with a crazy good cast. It’s based on the book of the same title.
Expand ...
You are correct in that that 1977 film was about that battle. Personally, I didn't care for that movie. Lacked the sort of realism we've become accustomed to in later war epics. But good memory bringing it up. I'd forgotten about it.
 
storrsroars said:
You are correct in that that 1977 film was about that battle. Personally, I didn't care for that movie. Lacked the sort of realism we've become accustomed to in later war epics. But good memory bringing it up. I'd forgotten about it.
Expand ...

It’s not a great movie because it’s more academic than entertainment. But in terms of showing why it was a failure it was bang on.
 
Never know what will show up on Hoopla, some are fairly new. I hadn't even heard of this before but it sounded interesting enough. "Love Spreads" w/ Alia Shawkat, Eiza Gonzalez and some others I wasn't familiar with. About a band that had a surprising hit record w/ their debut, and are now in the studio to record their all important follow up. And it's not going well. Some drama within the band, and with their manager. Got tedious for a while, but just interesting enough to stick with. A change is made within the band about halfway thru and then the dynamic totally changes. It was almost faux documentary style, but not quite. Overall I enjoyed it. Did not like Alia's character. Eiza...seen a little of her before, always enjoyed her, hope to see more. If you like movies about music, might be worth checking out.
 
ZooCougar said:
Dune-Gooooooooood and it really needs to be seen in a theatrical setting for best results.
Expand ...

Dune was pretty good. I know I am not the target audience for this movie, but I would have liked fewer action scenes and more set up.

There is not a lot of buildup to Yueh's betrayal. As someone who had read the book and saw the 1984 movie, I knew the context, but someone who had done neither Yueh's betrayal would not have nearly the impact. He was basically just one of the background characters until the attack starts in this version of Dune.

The attack on Arakis was very well done, and a huge improvement from the first movie. The technology just didn't exist 37 years ago to do that scene justice.

The long escape in this Dune ate up a lot of screen time. Pretty cool visually, but I kind of wanted them to get to the Fremen before the last 10 minutes of the movie.

I am fine with the movie being two parts. The book works fairly cleanly into a first and second act. I do wish they had already started filming part 2. I don't want to wait 2 years.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Dune was pretty good. I know I am not the target audience for this movie, but I would have liked fewer action scenes and more set up.

There is not a lot of buildup to Yueh's betrayal. As someone who had read the book and saw the 1984 movie, I knew the context, but someone who had done neither Yueh's betrayal would not have nearly the impact. He was basically just one of the background characters until the attack starts in this version of Dune.

The attack on Arakis was very well done, and a huge improvement from the first movie. The technology just didn't exist 37 years ago to do that scene justice.

The long escape in this Dune ate up a lot of screen time. Pretty cool visually, but I kind of wanted them to get to the Fremen before the last 10 minutes of the movie.

I am fine with the movie being two parts. The book works fairly cleanly into a first and second act. I do wish they had already started filming part 2. I don't want to wait 2 years.
Expand ...

So, it was a long movie. But knowing it was part 1 I was kind of gun shy on the ending. Because I didn’t want to end.

I think the Yueh piece might have been edited out. This movie could have been 5-6 hours long if they covered everything, like the banquet. Also I am not certain that most of the uninitiated understand why the spice is so important

In the book they know there is a traitor, they just don’t know who. In relation to Yueh, there is a theory about the identity of the Harkonnen pet….

I wanted to see more Harkonnen and yeah in the book they are on Arrakis for much longer than a cup of coffee before they get attacked.

There are two or three really big things that I can think of that we haven’t seen. Looking forward to that.

I’ve seen the movie twice now. This thing was designed to be viewed more than once, like the first time I saw it I missed how Paul’s visions changed because events were happening to change the outcome.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Dune was pretty good. I know I am not the target audience for this movie, but I would have liked fewer action scenes and more set up.

There is not a lot of buildup to Yueh's betrayal. As someone who had read the book and saw the 1984 movie, I knew the context, but someone who had done neither Yueh's betrayal would not have nearly the impact. He was basically just one of the background characters until the attack starts in this version of Dune.

The attack on Arakis was very well done, and a huge improvement from the first movie. The technology just didn't exist 37 years ago to do that scene justice.

The long escape in this Dune ate up a lot of screen time. Pretty cool visually, but I kind of wanted them to get to the Fremen before the last 10 minutes of the movie.

I am fine with the movie being two parts. The book works fairly cleanly into a first and second act. I do wish they had already started filming part 2. I don't want to wait 2 years.
Expand ...

Also, I am thinking. That some of Part 2 already has been filmed.

But I have a feeling the second part will pick up two years in the future.
 
ZooCougar said:
Also, I am thinking. That some of Part 2 already has been filmed.

But I have a feeling the second part will pick up two years in the future.
Expand ...

They are keeping a fairly deliberate pace. If part two is the same length as part one, then that is over 5 hours of screen time to cover the book, which feels about right. That said, after sleeping on it, it seems even weirder that the Paul and Jessica adventure took up so much screen time. I get the importance that scene has for Duncan Idaho, but it was still a lot of screen time on those scenes when so much else got cut.

If they keep this pacing, the next movie will be 105 minutes of Paul and Jessica with Chani and the Fremen, and then about 45 minutes of the attack on the Harkonnen.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
They are keeping a fairly deliberate pace. If part two is the same length as part one, then that is over 5 hours of screen time to cover the book, which feels about right. That said, after sleeping on it, it seems even weirder that the Paul and Jessica adventure took up so much screen time. I get the importance that scene has for Duncan Idaho, but it was still a lot of screen time on those scenes when so much else got cut.

If they keep this pacing, the next movie will be 105 minutes of Paul and Jessica with Chani and the Fremen, and then about 45 minutes of the attack on the Harkonnen.
Expand ...

That part is important. That’s where the roles reverse. I like this Paul, he doesn’t see his abilities as a gift, more like a curse that he has to face. His outburst at Jessica was good.

I also dig how the portray the use of the voice.
 
Never read Dune. Started watching it last night online (I know it should be seen on a big screen) didn't understand most of what was going on other than Spice is good.
 
ZooCougar said:
That part is important. That’s where the roles reverse. I like this Paul, he doesn’t see his abilities as a gift, more like a curse that he has to face. His outburst at Jessica was good.

I also dig how the portray the use of the voice.
Expand ...

Watched it on Saturday at the cinema (even though it was free on HBO Max). I thought it was really well done. This Paul is excellent. I like Rebecca Ferguson in anything. Overall, great casting even if I'm not sold on Zendaya being able to act (or eat more that 500 calories a day). Pacing was very good and it didn't feel long to me.
 
.-.
ZooCougar said:
That part is important. That’s where the roles reverse. I like this Paul, he doesn’t see his abilities as a gift, more like a curse that he has to face. His outburst at Jessica was good.

I also dig how the portray the use of the voice.
Expand ...
Nicely set up by the conversation with his father at the Calladan family grave site before leaving for Arrakis
 
HuskyHawk said:
Watched it on Saturday at the cinema (even though it was free on HBO Max). I thought it was really well done. This Paul is excellent. I like Rebecca Ferguson in anything. Overall, great casting even if I'm not sold on Zendaya being able to
Expand ...

Well, she is a vegetarian because she loves animals.
 
Letsgohuskies11 said:
Never read Dune. Started watching it last night online (I know it should be seen on a big screen) didn't understand most of what was going on other than Spice is good.
Expand ...

I was mildly critical of this. But the more I think about it, for the first movie it’s not that important.

When we meet the Emperor and the Spacing Guild it will come into focus.

I did not say this. I am not here.
 
Matchup comparison, actors of 1984 Dune to actors of 2021 Dune:

More of ">" indicates a bigger gap between the actors.

Paul Atriedes - Timothy Chalamet >>>>>>>> Kyle MacLachlan - MacLachlan is a mediocre actor on his good days. Chalamet is great.

Chani - Zendaya >>>> Sean Young. Sean Young's claim to fame is being one of the most batspit crazy actors in the history of a town of batspit crazy actors. One of the problems with the first Dune is that MacLachlan and Young couldn't carry a movie as the leads.

Duncan Idaho - Jason Mamoa >> Richard Jordan. Jordan was a good actor back in the day, but this was weird casting in the 1984 movie. He wasn't right for the role.

Baron Harkonnen - Stellan Skarsgard >>> Kenneth McMillan. McMillan wasn't bad in Dune 1984, but Skarsgard is one of the best actors of his generation.

Duke Leto - Oscar Isaac >>> Jurgen Prochnow. Prochnow was not bad, but Isaac is better as an actor and the writing for Leto is so much better in the new one.

Lady Jessica - Francesca Annis >>>>> Rebecca Ferguson. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was absolutely wrong for Lady Jessica. Francesca Annis played her badass, and as someone to be feared. Ferguson is mousy and plays her practically afraid of her own shadow, so when Lady Jessica wins a couple of the confrontations in Dune 2021, it doesn't feel credible.

Gurney Hallock - Patrick Stewart > Josh Brolin. Close, but Stewart was better.

Shadout Mapes - Linda Hunt >>>> Golda Rosheuvel. There were a lot of odd directorial decisions in Dune 1984, but one of the few good ones was giving Linda Hunt a lot of screen time.

Stilgar - Javier Bardem > Everett McGill. Too early to call, although Bardem is probably going to come out ahead.

Thufir Hawat - Stephen McKinley Henderson = Freddie Jones. Both were good. Henderson has a chance to pull into the lead in Part II.

Dr. Yueh - Dean Stockwell > Chen Chang. I thought Chang was fine in the role, but the writers kind of screwed up the character in Dune 2021.

Rabban - Dave Bautista >>>>> Paul Smith. I thought Smith's Rabban was one of the worst acting jobs in the first Dune, for a role that isn't that hard. Simple competence by Bautista is a huge improvement.
 
Finally saw "Cruella." Decent, didn't like it as much as I thought I might. Took quite a while to get into the heart of the story. Emma Stone and Emma Thompson were both good. I always like Mark Strong, although he wasn't given a whole lot to do.


The movie used a ton of songs. First half of the movie, just about every scene used a rock song from the 60s or 70s. I found it really distracting. Some of them didn't fit IMO. But it was just such overkill. Seemed like an extended music video and took me out of the storytelling.

I'm assuming there will be a sequel. Interesting enough origin story, but doesn't really explain how Cruella became what we know her as. Unless Disney is scrapping that entirely. Kinda like Maleficient. Actually the misunderstood heroine, not a monster.
 
nwhoopfan said:
Finally saw "Cruella." Decent, didn't like it as much as I thought I might. Took quite a while to get into the heart of the story. Emma Stone and Emma Thompson were both good. I always like Mark Strong, although he wasn't given a whole lot to do.


The movie used a ton of songs. First half of the movie, just about every scene used a rock song from the 60s or 70s. I found it really distracting. Some of them didn't fit IMO. But it was just such overkill. Seemed like an extended music video and took me out of the storytelling.

I'm assuming there will be a sequel. Interesting enough origin story, but doesn't really explain how Cruella became what we know her as. Unless Disney is scrapping that entirely. Kinda like Maleficient. Actually the misunderstood heroine, not a monster.
Expand ...

The music was part of what made it great for me. To each his own I guess. I thought it was quite good, if a bit slow to get going. I think that slow start helps with character development.
 
.-.
The Inheritance. 2021. Found this streaming on Prime or Shudder, I'm not sure which. A woman inherits a massive home in central Kiev from her grandfather. She and her husband travel from Chicago. Weird stuff happens, which may or may not involve ghosts. There is unexplainable behavior from several people...none of which is ever explained. I'm not sure I have ever seen a movie that managed to be decent enough to keep watching, and which had 3-4 mysteries, of which they resolve one and then end. Annoying as hell.
 
I've seen it before, but it's been quite a while. The latest (I think; 2017) take on the Arthurian legend, Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" just hit Netflix streaming. I know some really don't like it, and I can understand that. I find it very entertaining. I think you have to adjust your expectations and just accept that it's very loosely based on the well known legend. There are plenty of other versions if you want something more traditional. It's a Ritchie movie thru and thru, and I appreciated that. Just set in a different time frame w/ some sword and sandal and sorcery/mysticism elements added to the mix. Fast talking, tough guy low level crooks in the seedy underbelly of London, that's what he does. It is a bit confusing at times, many characters are on screen at least briefly, some I don't think are even named, can be a bit difficult to figure out who is who. Especially among the female cast. There is the mage and Maggie, and then...a bunch of other women?

I'm sure there are much earlier versions, but to compare it to some others I believe "Excalibur" is considered a classic, but it seems fairly dated to me (1981). "First Knight" (1995) and "King Arthur" (2004--the one w/ Clive Owen and Keira Knightley) are both readily forgettable IMO. The 2004 version was also a very different take on the legend (while I didn't think of it til just now, it's not that dissimilar to "Centurion," which I consider a much better film; while that has nothing to do w/ Arthur, the basic premise of a small group of Roman soldiers battling it out with northern savages on the wrong side of a wall is pretty similar).

It's just one man's humble opinion, but for rewatchability I think I'd take Ritchie's version over those other 3 mentioned.
 
nwhoopfan said:
I've seen it before, but it's been quite a while. The latest (I think; 2017) take on the Arthurian legend, Guy Ritchie's "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" just hit Netflix streaming. I know some really don't like it, and I can understand that. I find it very entertaining. I think you have to adjust your expectations and just accept that it's very loosely based on the well known legend. There are plenty of other versions if you want something more traditional. It's a Ritchie movie thru and thru, and I appreciated that. Just set in a different time frame w/ some sword and sandal and sorcery/mysticism elements added to the mix. Fast talking, tough guy low level crooks in the seedy underbelly of London, that's what he does. It is a bit confusing at times, many characters are on screen at least briefly, some I don't think are even named, can be a bit difficult to figure out who is who. Especially among the female cast. There is the mage and Maggie, and then...a bunch of other women?

I'm sure there are much earlier versions, but to compare it to some others I believe "Excalibur" is considered a classic, but it seems fairly dated to me (1981). "First Knight" (1995) and "King Arthur" (2004--the one w/ Clive Owen and Keira Knightley) are both readily forgettable IMO. The 2004 version was also a very different take on the legend (while I didn't think of it til just now, it's not that dissimilar to "Centurion," which I consider a much better film; while that has nothing to do w/ Arthur, the basic premise of a small group of Roman soldiers battling it out with northern savages on the wrong side of a wall is pretty similar).

It's just one man's humble opinion, but for rewatchability I think I'd take Ritchie's version over those other 3 mentioned.
Expand ...

I liked King Arthur (2004 Clive Owen), thought it brought an interesting element with the Romans, Celts and the Rus. I need to rewatch the one you mentioned. Excalibur was cool, except for the silly shiny armor. Definitely dated. Holy Grail actually had lots of historically accurate costuming. The Python guys wanted as much as possible to be realistic to help highlight the comedic absurdity.

Has anybody seen The Green Knight? It's been in theaters this fall/summer and still "rent" streaming. I was thinking of watching it this weekend.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Matchup comparison, actors of 1984 Dune to actors of 2021 Dune:

More of ">" indicates a bigger gap between the actors.

Paul Atriedes - Timothy Chalamet >>>>>>>> Kyle MacLachlan - MacLachlan is a mediocre actor on his good days. Chalamet is great.

Chani - Zendaya >>>> Sean Young. Sean Young's claim to fame is being one of the most batspit crazy actors in the history of a town of batspit crazy actors. One of the problems with the first Dune is that MacLachlan and Young couldn't carry a movie as the leads.

Duncan Idaho - Jason Mamoa >> Richard Jordan. Jordan was a good actor back in the day, but this was weird casting in the 1984 movie. He wasn't right for the role.

Baron Harkonnen - Stellan Skarsgard >>> Kenneth McMillan. McMillan wasn't bad in Dune 1984, but Skarsgard is one of the best actors of his generation.

Duke Leto - Oscar Isaac >>> Jurgen Prochnow. Prochnow was not bad, but Isaac is better as an actor and the writing for Leto is so much better in the new one.

Lady Jessica - Francesca Annis >>>>> Rebecca Ferguson. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was absolutely wrong for Lady Jessica. Francesca Annis played her badass, and as someone to be feared. Ferguson is mousy and plays her practically afraid of her own shadow, so when Lady Jessica wins a couple of the confrontations in Dune 2021, it doesn't feel credible.

Gurney Hallock - Patrick Stewart > Josh Brolin. Close, but Stewart was better.

Shadout Mapes - Linda Hunt >>>> Golda Rosheuvel. There were a lot of odd directorial decisions in Dune 1984, but one of the few good ones was giving Linda Hunt a lot of screen time.

Stilgar - Javier Bardem > Everett McGill. Too early to call, although Bardem is probably going to come out ahead.

Thufir Hawat - Stephen McKinley Henderson = Freddie Jones. Both were good. Henderson has a chance to pull into the lead in Part II.

Dr. Yueh - Dean Stockwell > Chen Chang. I thought Chang was fine in the role, but the writers kind of screwed up the character in Dune 2021.

Rabban - Dave Bautista >>>>> Paul Smith. I thought Smith's Rabban was one of the worst acting jobs in the first Dune, for a role that isn't that hard. Simple competence by Bautista is a huge improvement.
Expand ...

Bardem was born to okay Stillgar.

Zendaya is terrible. She literally couldn’t act to save her life. Her value is 100% based on her looks.

Sean Young is crazy, but she had some great roles in No Way Out, Bladerunner and Dune. She was like the Zendaya of her time. Except she actually was talented.

The problem with the original Dune was the Producers and that Directors. The movie was butchered and while it had some goodness it also did some stupid stuff, like the rain at the end.
 
HuskyHawk said:
. Holy Grail actually had lots of historically accurate costuming
Expand ...
How could I forget this? Definitely the best big screen treatment of Arthur of all time!

(I purposely skipped Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" since I haven't seen it since I was a kid and have zero recollection of it)
 
'Hell Fest" (2018) - A killer in a hoodie and scary mask. I dug it. Not much more one can do to teen scream movies nowadays but this one satisfied.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,510
Messages
4,579,688
Members
10,488
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom